On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:36:36PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:> When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of> them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that> is OK.> > When Linux took our changes back, they immediately locked the door> against changes moving back, by putting a GPL license on guard.> > Why does our brother Linux take a file that is 90% BSD licensed,> and refuse to let us see the 10% he adds?

Theo, the primary claim you made in your email that was forwarded to linux-kernel was:

<-- snip -->

In http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/29/183, Alan Cox managed to summarizewhat Jiri Slaby and Luis Rodriguez were trying to do by proposing amodification of a Dual Licenced file without the consent of all theauthors. Alan asks "So whats the problem ?". Well, Alan, I mustcaution you -- your post is advising people to break the law.

<-- snip -->

It is a quite heavy accusation against Alan that saying it was OK to change dual licenced code to one of the offered licences would adviseto break the law.

There's nothing about goodwill or other ethical questions in your statement, this statement you made can be verified or falsified by lawyers.

If it is true, all ethical questions about this are anyway moot because it was illegal as you claim.

If you wrongly accused Alan, you owe Alan an apology.

cuAdrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed